memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Dwarf planet
Moved from Vfd ;Dwarf planet: Ignore the current content of that page - what's being voted on is the earlier revision that was a redirect to Planetoid. Deletion was requested by User:BlueMars. -- Cid Highwind 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. Dwarf planet is now a scientific term, that's probably being put to use in the future. It can't hurt to have this connected to some article here - if not to planetoid, then perhaps to simply planet? -- Cid Highwind 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', while "dwarf planet" is a scientific term as of 24 August 2006, it has never been used in Star Trek to my knowledge. We are not a dictionary, and we keep to canon. This name apparently has never been used in canon, so why would we keep it? It would certainly not make sense to apply this to planets, since it is being used for bodies such as Pluto, which has been demoted to not being a full planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC) **We already have articles about "scientific terms" that haven't been directly mentioned by name, but used by concept. From on-screen sources, we don't know what exactly this "Pluto" is, so we are referring to our real-world knowledge and call Pluto a "dwarf planet", because that is what it is classified as at the moment. The alternative would be to call Pluto nothing but "some unknown object in the solar system" - surely not something one would expect. -- Cid Highwind 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ***We can call Pluto a dwarf planet, possibly (that is an entire other discussion, one that is being held elsewhere), but do we then need an article on dwarf planets? An entire article with no canon information? I personally say no, and I would say no to many of the other ones. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. This is a legitimate term. It doesn't matter if it wasn't around when ST was written. It's a matter of science. If it is not included in this encyclopedia, then that would essentially place ST within the realm of fantasy, not science fiction. Therefore a "dwarf planet" article MUST exist on Memory Alpha. -- Krevaner 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) **Um, no, you are forgetting the FICTION part of science fiction. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - What gives some scientists the right to decide what is and what isnt? MatthewFenton 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *Further comment. People seem to be saying we should keep this because it would be part of science in Star Trek, whether it is mentioned or not. Here is an example problem with this. We do not have an article about "Cepheid Variables". They are used to measure the distance to other galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy, which is mentioned in Star Trek, but because Cepheid Variables are not, they don't get an article. Neither is there an article for "Spiral galaxy", despite the fact that the Milky Way, where Star Trek takes place, is a spiral galaxy. Should there be a mention of Pluto being a dwarf planet on the Pluto article, in the background section? YES. Should there be an article for something never mentioned in Star Trek? NO! --OuroborosCobra talk 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Comment', again: What part of "redirect to Planetoid" (alternatively to Planet) is so hard to understand? This is not about creating a whole article with stuff in it, it is about keeping a redirect... -- Cid Highwind 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC) **OK, somehow I forgot that part. Sorry, been in debates about Pluto and this IAU stuff in 50 different places today on the internet, I was bound to forget something somewhere. Redirect to planet would be a mistake, since they are not planets, but redirect to planetoid would be fine. Just no article for itself, that would be bad ;) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' as redirect to planetoid. (Haha, reading through all that I forgot the same thing.) Although, it still wasn't mentioned in canon, and I may change my vote depending on the outcome of our Pluto decisian. - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)